VB9-03385

VB9-03385

The appeal is dismissed because, on independent review, the RPD's adverse credibility findings were justified by inconsistencies, evasive and speculative testimony, and lack of evidence that the in‑laws have the motive and capacity to persecute the Appellants; the newly admitted evidence correcting a BOC date error did not raise a determinative credibility issue and an IFA analysis was unnecessary.

Citation
VB9-03385
Parties
Appellant (principal): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (minor): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent (minister): Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal — Reasons and Dismissal (march 15, 2021)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, Credibility Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Female Genital Mutilation (fgm), Procedural Fairness, New Evidence/admission, Reavailment, Family Unity
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee Determination Credibility Assessment Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (principal)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (minor)

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent (minister)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal — Reasons and Dismissal (march 15, 2021)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Refugee Protection Division breached procedural fairness by failing to ensure comprehension at hearing
  2. 2 Whether the RPD's adverse findings on credibility were reasonable
  3. 3 Admissibility and weight of new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA and criteria for oral hearing under s.110(6) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because, on independent review, the RPD's adverse credibility findings were justified by inconsistencies, evasive and speculative testimony, and lack of evidence that the in‑laws have the motive and capacity to persecute the Appellants; the newly admitted evidence correcting a BOC date error did not raise a determinative credibility issue and an IFA analysis was unnecessary.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division of April 11, 2019, is confirmed: Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.